"Chris" wrote in message
...

24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains
to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for
any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if you
remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at
Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though
- I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every 5
minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would
be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow Readings in
between the CRossrails after Hayes though.

Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains not
going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station' at
Westbourne Park?

Paul S

Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra
trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's
little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to
Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would
probably terminate at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12
trains to Heathrow though - I can't see the customer levels for
heathrow needing a train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6
Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still
no real room to insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails
after Hayes though.

Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail
trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the
'ghost station' at Westbourne Park?

For the westbound peaks, out of 24 tph through central London, 14 will
reverse at Paddington (via Westbourne Park sidings), 4 will go to
Heathrow, and 6 will go west of Hayes on the GWML, of which 2 will
terminate at West Drayton, leaving just 4 to Maidenhead.

Although all Crossrail trains will stop at all stations east of London,
this is not true west of Paddington, particularly off-peak. This is
supposed to be in order to leave paths on the relief lines for FGW
trains to/from Reading and further west.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains
to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for
any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if
you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at
Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though
- I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every
5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead
would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow
Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though.

Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains
not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost
station' at Westbourne Park?

They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're
not going to Reading".

On 15 Dec, 19:08, Chris wrote:
On 14 Dec, 22:51, "Peter Masson" wrote:

"Dan G" wrote

I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why?
Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to
Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and
then change for the ride into central London (or beyond).

If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be
available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at
Slough) between Paddington and Reading.

Network Rail are trying to remove stops on the fast lines twixt
Paddington & Reading. And I think they'll finally take this
opportunity should Crossrail make it to Reading, which I think it
might - although Ken Livingstone won't be able to spend any money on
it as it's outside his jurisdiction, as is Ebbsfleet.

(big snip)


Just because Reading and Ebbsfleet are outside Greater London doesn't
mean TfL can't deal with them. If the DfT were to give the money and
the go-ahead to TfL for either project then they could thus be in
charge of delivering that project and the services that run on it, as
a kind of contractor.

Bear in mind that just under half of TfL's annual income comes from a
central government grant. In addition TfL are responsible for
operating rail services outside of Greater London, in Buckinghamshire
(LU Met line), Essex (Central line), and Hertfordshire (London
Overground to Watford Jn and LU Metropolitan line).

TfL were pushing an embryonic proposal that would've led to the
creation of a London Regional Rail Authority - this would stretch
beyond Greater London into the home counties, and would somehow 'take
control' of commuter and local London services. AIUI the plan was that
the authority would have been led by TfL but would have had inputs
from those counties it covered, including a mechanism of democratic
accountability (i.e. a board of councillors from the relevant local
authorities of the area covered).

This has all been put on the back burner, but the Mayor and TfL are
certainly keen on having more control over rail services in Greater
London, so similar proposals might well come round again, especially
after TfL have had some time to prove their competence by running the
London Overground network.

On Dec 14, 10:51 pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Dan G" wrote

I live in Reading and I don't want Crossrail to come here. Why?
Because Crossrail will be a stopper service. I want to catch an HST to
Paddington, overtaking the slow Crossrail trains past Maidenhead, and
then change for the ride into central London (or beyond). Taking it
all the way to Reading would increase the already sky-high cost and
take away capacity for other, more useful, trains for Reading.

If Crossrail is extended to Reading the Main (Fast) Lines will still be
available for 125 mph trains running non-stop (or possibly calling at
Slough) between Paddington and Reading. But if it terminates at Maidenhead
how are London to Twyford/Henley passengers to be catered for, or passengers
travelling to Reading from intermediate stations? Will there be a
Paddington - Reading stopping service sandwiched between Crossrail trains
(using capacity which really ought to be kept for freight)? Or will
passengers have to use Crossrail, and change at Slough or Maidenhead for a
shuttle service? Or will Main Line capacity be used up with 90 mph trains
calling at Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford (perhaps crossing to the Relief
Lines at Dolphin, Maidenhead East or Ruscombe once the Crossrail service has
thinned out - and the crossing move eats capacity)?

While Crossrail can be justified as a stopping service within Greater
London, as Acton Main Line and Hanwell would undoubtedly get much more use
if they had a decent service) stopping all Maidenhead trains at Iver and
Taplow is daft, as in population terms these two stations at least are in
the middle of nowhere.

The argument that saddling Crossrail with the cost of rebuilding and
resignalling Reading would make Crossrail unaffordable is sound, but the
argument that even if these necessary improvements are funded separately, as
they will be, Crossrail still can't go there is weak. However, it has to be
realised that although Reading is only two stations further than Maidenhead
it is actually half as far again as Paddington to Maidenhead.

Peter

Its called piecemeal enchroachment or piecemeal development. Its what
the Government is good at - as witnessed at Heathrow. Of course
they'll build Crossrail to/from Maidenhead - at first. But then later
they'll extend it to Reading and further to the East and South East.
Like at Heathrow with T4, then widening the M25, then T5, then
Airtrack, then the Third Runway and T6, etc., there would be no way of
getting planning permission for just one really mega-project. So each
project gets planning permission one at a time during which further
development is always denied. Then when that project is up and
running, the next one - even though emphatically denied - is started.
Haven't you heard of the BAA (wholy privately owned by Spanish
property demolition and development company Ferrovial) with its lies,
damned lies, statistics, and emphatic denials? Crossrail is just the
same. CJB.

http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=4600
quote

Crossrail bill heads for Lords following third reading
Filed 17/12/07

The hybrid bill which will allow construction of the London Crossrail
link has cleared the Commons after nearly three years of debate.

(Snip)

"The improved east-west rail access into and across London from the
east and south-east regions will also support local and national
government policy for economic development and regeneration,
particularly in the Lea valley and Thames Gateway, attracting some
additional 80,000 jobs to regeneration areas."

Theresa May, Conservative MP for Maidenhead, where the route is due to
terminate in the west, sought assurances that a future extension to
Reading would be possible by means of a Transport & Works Act order,
rather than requiring further legislation to be introduced in
parliament. Tom Harris explained that future extensions to Reading and
Ebbsfleet could be accommodated by this process, subject to legal
test. He said the government would make an announcement in due course
about safeguarding these routes although he emphasised that there was
no intention of funding such extensions at present. "

May also expressed concerns about current fast and semi-fast trains to
and from Maidenhead being replaced by an all-stations stopping
Crossrail service. She said: "Crossrail could be so much more of a
benefit to the UK, to the south-east and to my constituents if the
government examined carefully the service provision on First Great
Western when Crossrail comes and looked at the issue of extending to
Reading."

(Snip).

Ian Liddell-Grainger, Conservative MP for Bridgwater, welcomed the
opportunity for greater scrutiny of the project and admitted that the
committee which previously scrutinised the bill was unable to clarify
the cost of some components of the scheme. "We never quite got to the
bottom of the costings, although we tried to write into the bill a
provision that the costings had to be shown to parliament, the London
Assembly, the outer boroughs and the royal boroughs," he said. "One
reason that we did not get to the bottom of the costings was that we
got the okay for Woolwich at a time when we were trying to get things
sorted out as quickly as possible so as to get the bill to this stage,
and there are still some grey areas. New clause 1 would mean that some
of the bits that we could not fulfil will now have the money put in. I
would like to think that the minister will push Crossrail to fill bits
in, especially at Woolwich, and with the external stations at both
ends and the Heathrow link."

He also described freight operator EWS as "barrow boys" and cited the
company as an example of where the committee had not been able to
clarify funding needs. "It became quite obvious when many committee
members visited its operations - I could not go - that attempts were
being made to pull the wool over our eyes. That is a glaring example
of a case where the funding was not understood. We could not get to
the bottom of what it was trying to do, or of what it wanted. The new
clause, if it is accepted, will push such organisations into a
position where they have to say precisely what their contribution to
the costs will be."

unquote
Two thoughts

Theresa May's idea of future extension through TWA seems a good one

One wonders what wool the barrow boys of EWS were trying to pull over
the eyes of the Crossrail committee. Does the committee understand the
difference between the TOC franchises and the Open Market Freight
Companies. If the latter were not entrepreneurial - the economist's
translation of "barrow boy" they would find themselves being eaten
alive by the Road Haulage Industry.

On 19 Dec, 08:43, Mwmbwls wrote:

He also described freight operator EWS as "barrow boys" and cited the
company as an example of where the committee had not been able to
clarify funding needs. "It became quite obvious when many committee
members visited its operations - I could not go - that attempts were
being made to pull the wool over our eyes. That is a glaring example
of a case where the funding was not understood. We could not get to
the bottom of what it was trying to do, or of what it wanted. The new
clause, if it is accepted, will push such organisations into a
position where they have to say precisely what their contribution to
the costs will be."

Just what financial contributions are the committee expecting from a
freight operator towards a new passenger railway whose aim seems to be
to eliminate "pesky" freight from existing joint use lines.

George